the truth about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

PHSO is #corruptbydesign

Corruption can take many forms and in relation to the Ombudsman(PHSO) the corruption referred to is ‘systemic corruption of purpose’. A generic definition of an Ombudsman as supplied by Wiki: An ombudsman, ombudsperson, ombud, or public advocate is an official who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights. Yet here in the UK our Ombudsman does the very opposite and represents the interests of the state against the public. This article will provide evidence that from the very inception and throughout various amendments the UK Ombudsman is #corruptbydesign.

Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption)[15] is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.

Sweden is the birthplace of the modern Ombudsman initiating their Parliamentary Ombudsman in 1809 “to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch.” No doubt many citizens needed such safeguarding in the UK at that time but it took the resignation of a Cabinet Minister in the Crichel Down Affair of 1954 to persuade the British Government to adopt the Ombudsman model. This scandal culminated in the first resignation of a Minister since 1917 and was marked by a very public scrutiny of a Minister carrying out his discretionary duties.

“In the history of modern parliament, the Crichel Down affair takes on momentous significance, and has been described as a ‘political bombshell’. The public inquiry into the Crichel Down events revealed a catalogue of ineptitude and maladministration and resulted directly in the resignation of the Secretary of State for Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale), then a senior cabinet position, and was the first case of Ministerial resignation since 1917. Whilst the underlying case was, in the scale of things, trivial, involving the transfer of some seven hundred acres of mediocre agricultural land in Dorset, the ramifications for subsequent government procedure have been enormous, and it is regarded as one of the key events leading to the creation of the post of Ombudsman. Crichel Down was probably the first instance of close and very public scrutiny being directed at a Minister of the Crown in the execution of his duties.” Crichel Down affair

#corruptbydesign 1.

The motivation for the creation of a UK Parliamentary Ombudsman sprang from a desire to protect Ministers and not a desire to protect the public.

The fundamental flaws of the 1967 Parliamentary Commissioner Bill:

A failure to include discretionary decisions made by Ministers or government departments for scrutiny by the Ombudsman or by other means.

A failure to define ‘maladministration’ leaving it to the Ombudsman’s discretion on a case by case basis.

A failure to provide direct access to the public forcing them to appeal through their MP who can decline their request.

A failure to give the Ombudsman powers of coercion over public bodies.

A failure to make the Ombudsman accountable except by judicial review, beyond the means of most citizens but within the means of public bodies with funded legal teams.

The Whyatt Report, The Citizen and the Administration: The redress of Grievances.’ (1961) written after the Crichel Down Affair,Whyatt quite rightly determined that much injustice was delivered to the citizen due to the inappropriate use of administrative discretion and that independent tribunal was necessary for public redress. Failure to act in a timely manner or failure to take the most appropriate action is often described in public inquiry reports as ‘missed opportunities’. These actions undoubtedly led to the ensuing disaster, but often fail to be judged as maladministration. When policies and procedures are only guidelines, proving maladministration is extremely difficult. There is rarely a smoking gun, more often a trail of error and ineptitude. Providing the opportunity for citizens to seek redress for poor administrative decisions through independent tribunal was always more likely to provide redress than the cumbersome investigation process, yet this key aspect of the Whyatt report was never implemented.

The debate in the Lords in 1967 identified the difficulties with providing redress when there was no clarity over what constituted ‘maladministration’ and therefore within the remit of the Ombudsman and what would be determined as ‘discretionary decision making’ and consequently beyond scrutiny.

Lord Harlech

“But, my Lords, let us look for a moment at those Departments listed in Schedule 2 which do have a more direct and frequent impact on the lives of the general public. To what extent does the Bill provide a means of redress of grievance by the general public? It seems to me that it would depend very much on how we define and interpret the word “maladministration”. I think that the noble and learned Lord conceded that this was a point of difficulty. Certainly this was a point which gave rise to long debate in another place without, it seemed to me, anyone being very much wiser at the end of it. Speaking for myself, I should be immensely grateful if we could be given, first, a simple example of a grievance likely to be submitted by an individual for investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner; secondly, an explanation as to in what respect the action complained of might be due to maladministration and, thirdly, even if it was due to maladministration, how it could be determined that this was not due to the exercise of a discretion vested in the department or authority”. I have taken those words, of course, from Clause 5(4) a subsection which, as the noble and learned Lord said, was inserted by the Government at a late stage in the passage of the Bill through another place, and which seems to me to give the Bureaucracy a loophole as large as the Round Tower of Windsor. If it is not the case, I, for one, should be most grateful to have it explained to me.”

Equally, Quintin Hogg leading for the Conservatives on the Ombudsman legislation of 1967 referred to it as a“swiz”: “We on this side always knew that the whole thing was a swiz, but that was not spelt into the Bill. It did notwrite down in so many words in a schedule, “this is a swiz”….The bill was always drafted to be a swiz, and now it isspelt into the bill.”

#corruptbydesign 2.

The government paid no attention to the debate in the Lords and in fact set up the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner before the debate took place. Maladministration has never been defined and can be anything the Ombudsman considers it to be, offering no consistency or predictability. Discretionary decisions are still beyond the remit of the Ombudsman and it is for the Ombudsman to decide which evidence falls under such heading allowing the Ombudsman to ‘cherrypick’ the evidence. The MP filter has not been removed giving Parliament continued control over access to the Ombudsman for Parliamentary complaints.

There has been a failure of parliament over 50 years to reform the Ombudsman which was originally considered to be something of an ‘experiment’.

Despite much discussion on the subject successive governments have failed to reform the Ombudsman and tackle the fundamental flaws in legislation which prevent citizens from achieving redress. A sad history of words without deeds on Ombudsman reform can be found here

Lord Lester, in one such debate (January 2000) put forward the notion that, “Of course it is convenient for Ministers to have a rusty machine that takes a long time and does not deal very effectively with citizens’ complaints.” hansard

#corruptbydesign 3.

Despite much debate on the inability of the Ombudsman to serve the public those in power have consistently failed to reform this body knowing that the inefficiency of the system serves to protect them.

Recent draft proposals for reform serve to further disable the Ombudsman from upholding complaints.

In 2017 the Cabinet Office finally released a draft proposal for reform of the Ombudsman. A detailed assessment of this proposal can be read here

It is clear from this proposal that parliament has no intention of removing any of the barriers to justice and in fact, clause 8 effectively nullifies the Ombudsman’s investigative process by negating any requirement on public bodies to act on the findings of an Ombudsman’s report.

(8) designated authority must have regard to any recommendations contained in a statement under subsection (1)(c) in respect of the authority (but is not required by virtue of anything in this Act to give effect to any such recommendations). (p16)

Although the Cabinet Office drew on a report entitled ‘Better to serve the Public’ the proposal ensured that the public would continue to be stymied by allowing the continuation of the following flaws in the legislation.

The Ombudsman must determine harm caused by maladministration when there is no definition of either term and the Ombudsman has the discretionary powers to decide that the harm would have occurred in any event, leading to no uphold.

The Ombudsman investigates in secret resulting in neither party being able to influence the outcome by challenging false evidence or assumptions.

The Ombudsman is under no obligation to apply statutory regulations but can decide which regulations to apply on a case by case basis without challenge.

The Ombudsman can determine which parts of a complaint to investigate and which to ‘scope out’ of the investigation without challenge from the complainant.

The Ombudsman can continue with an investigation even when the complainant loses confidence and withdraws from the process. This can produce a flawed report which effectively prevents the complainant taking legal action.

The Ombudsman can only investigate the complaint when the designated authority has had a ‘reasonable opportunity’ to carry out an internal investigation and respond. The ‘reasonable opportunity’ is not time-bounded and can continue for years wearing down the ability of the complainant to pursue the case. It gives the authority under investigation every opportunity to review the evidence and gather legal advice before the ‘independent’ Ombudsman investigation takes place. Evidence can and has been removed, destroyed or altered.

There is no requirement of the Ombudsman to hold evidence for longer than 12 months. Evidence is then destroyed making it impossible to detect repeated patterns of offence.

All complaints about the Ombudsman are handled internally by the Ombudsman themselves. No external scrutiny.

The governance structure allows for political appointments to the board such as Sir Alex Allan who is simultaneously an advisor to Ministers creating a conflict of interests for the ‘independent’ Ombudsman just-how-independent-from-government-is-phso

There is ‘free-flow’ of personnel from government departments into management positions at the Ombudsman’s office. Amanda Campbell moved from the Home Office to become CEO in 2016 and in 2017 Rob Behrens moved from OIA (technically a charity which monitors complaints about higher education) to become the new Ombudsman.

The board has no powers of control over the operation of the Ombudsman.

PACAC is unable to examine individual complaints on behalf of parliament resulting in no oversight of the investigation process

If you want to see the #corrupt PHSO process at work then read this evidence from 2010 which sets out exactly how they go about it. Written Evidence to HSC 2010

#corruptbydesign 4.

Returning to our definition it can be seen that the Ombudsman has conflicting incentives as it is funded by parliament, with key appointments through parliamentary bodies and meets regularly with government departments such as the Cabinet Office and Department of Health. It also has no powers of coercion over the public body ‘stakeholders’ so must negotiate with them for compliance. ombudsman-to-public-bodies-please-do-as-i-say The Ombudsman has significant discretionary powers which make legal challenge virtually impossible for members of the public. The Ombudsman is the only body who can investigate parliamentary and health complaints giving it monopolistic powers. There is a significant lack of transparency with secret investigations, no external review of the investigation processes or outcomes and a failure to release meeting minutes into the public domain. No new case studies have been placed on the website since 2015. There is a culture of impunity as it is impossible for a member of the public to hold the Ombudsman to account either by direct complaint, appeal to parliament or appeal to the criminal justice system. The Ombudsman meets virtually all of the factors for systemic corruption.

This systemic corruption of purpose is a national disgrace and should cause a public outcry but the situation is unlikely to alter while those in power are protected and many others exist to fill the void and by default benefit from the failure of the Ombudsman and the public complaint system as a whole to deliver justice.

46 thoughts on “PHSO is #corruptbydesign”

Way Forward: Scrap the Ombudsman Service and make MP’s accountable again! Sounds a little like the idea for BREXIT

Give people the vote and if they vote Brexit then spend two years trying to convince them they were wrong!

If that doesn’t work then tell them they will all lose their jobs and the Chancellor will need to sort out a special punishment budget!

If that fails then have MP’s decide we were all stupid and need to vote again!

If that fails don’t worry – we can disguise leaving the EU and the single market and the UCJ by agreeing if we don’t get a proper plan to avoid a border in Ireland then we should let the EU not let us leave.

OH DEAR – people have figured out the plan – OK last resort : create an independent body something like the Ombudsman to decide when it is right for us to leave!

OK sounds a good idea but now what should we do? I know let us put Anna Soubry in charge of signing off the deal for the independent body when the time comes to leave.

To doubly prevent thoughs upstart members of the public from getting what they want : you know them 17.4 million voters that wanted to leave the most corrupt organisation on the face of the planet!

Well other then The UK’s Ombudsman Service of course!

Right! we need an insurance policy : I know appoint a co signatory a President if you like and I have just the best candidate to put in place …

Excellent report. But will it take somebody like Gina Miller with a lot of money to take the issue to the Supreme Court in London or a Human Rights Lawyer like Cherie Blair to the Human Rights court in Brussels. The PHOSO has worked it way through hundred of staff and a number of CEO to prove just how hopeless and incompetent it really is.

Yet NHS Trusts GP.s and all other bodies involved in healthcare still recommending the PHSO as the final arbiter in a complaint.

Only the public, the victims of this corruption of purpose are rallying for change. It seems to suit everyone else who make a living by endlessly talking about putting things right or who mop up with litigation claims.

The public has to feel absolute rage about how much of our money is being misused this way. Investigations cost a fortune (never mind the manipulation of the value for money report) and for what?

When Mr Behrens looks himself in the mirror, does he smirk at the manipulation and abuse his organisation is guilty of, he has to recognise it. Or did he really go into it naively believing his own claims and is there any chance he will look in that mirror with a slowly dawning realisation.

Even with so-called “historic” complaints, complainants seeking justice and remedy should be treated as valid current complainants and included us in all the improvements Mr Behrens claims to be making to PHSO.

When PHSO accepts by default, lies told by public bodies to them, why is that? Is it misguided trust in these bodies? Or is it much more likely what it looks like, corruption. Likewise when PHSO begins working with these bodies to deny what complainants are telling PHSO, in the face of evidence. In this day and age, with the internet, you can’t hide this stuff any more and there is so much negative stuff online about PHSO now, it’s not just a losing battle to remedy what Julie Mellor did, it’s a losing battle to maintain the pretence any longer in the face of PHSOs continued corrupt actions.

Brilliant account of the current state of play showing how the PHSO is irrefutably and deliberately corrupt by design. This should be required reading for PHSO staff, PACAC members, and anyone with an interest in the PHSO or the complaints system.

PHSO is #corruptbydesign I agree How can your child die under NHS Duty of Care yet no PHSO Investigation takes place (despite new evidence being produced as per request)? With so much corruption one must wonder was it ever read? Couldn’t agree more ” PHSO is irrefutably and deliberately corrupt by design’

My personal experience supports this article. The PHSO was recommended to me by my MP several years ago, but the resulting ‘report’ following their ‘investigation’ is a piece of blatent fraud. The PHSO continue to refuse to reflect the actual facts for a resultion which also means no learning takes place, as they advertise.

Having being kept in utter stress -entirely consciously- by the PHSO and NHS partners-in-denial, other services have again provided access to medical assistance to help cope with effects of PHSO abuse over 10 years of asking what was due.

Only after the PHSO agreed to examine service complaints and the last offensive and prejudiced report (taking 28 months in total), I discovered NHS Trust BSMHFT had lied to PHSO in 2015 with regard to my son’s demise and, on top of that, had demanded the PHSO report was altered in their favour.

This is not Building Trust or Caring in action – it is cynical and serious maladministration which continues, permitted still: and mainly the PHSO’s failing, since it could have oversight of new and historical data. This is the ‘gold dust’ (a reference back to the PR spin -the defence- of a previous PHSO) that was consigned to trash after use “for privacy and security” purposes, or lest patterns of negligence were tracked then reopened to discover and admit what went wrong.

Further; why is Government Office and Treasury supporting this charade of a service? People are dying for an ethical and value service which stands on human and government principle. Imho, and experience.

I will now be bold enough to state that, judging from my experience with this worthless process, the arrogance and cynicism of PHSO is to a great extent the REASON that the UK has walked blindly into it’s current Mental Health crisis, where even complainants are tormented, bludgeoned and crushed into giving up with PHSO for the sake of their own health.

We have approached the ECHR before on this matter John and they informed us that we needed to explore all the systems available in the UK before they would consider taking on our complaints. That means taking PHSO to the High Court and as members of the public that is beyond our means. The UN can only investigate if invited to do so by the Government and I don’t think that is likely after the damning poverty report. It is all sewn up John and a whole lot of back scratching is going on between all these bodies.

annex: Why no public outcry? Year after year maladministration and negligence at the #PHSO is witnessed and evidenced, but excused ‘on a promise’ to do better.

This cannot be solved by more PR, more distractions and more shutting-out Complainants’ horrific stories. PHSO perversity and peripheral procrastination has to be reformed from the top down.

Why are so-called solutions tactically ‘engineered’ by government services to look look some sort of fix, when authentically engineered solutions are so far from the understanding and competence? This has to be hastened, because again nobody is seriously listening, in a ‘jobsworth’ culture.

You are right of course. The solutions are always carefully controlled to be ineffective in dealing with the core issues. Just more window dressing. The Ombudsman works very well for parliament and the public bodies and as for the citizens – well – they don’t matter.

“Action required.” I had to have anger management therapy for 8 weeks because of lies told to the PHSO by an NHS Trust. . I learned the saying “do not get mad get even.” which is what I am still planning to do since my “incident” disaster in August 2014

The coverup does indeed wreck lives. It destroys your trust in authority forever and the helplessness engendered by authority collusion and denial often leads to depression and PTSD. But what do they care? Good luck with your quest for accountability.

My son Nick died through negligence at BSMHFT 10 years ago. The PHSO has been unable to appreciate the events that led up to his avoidable death and now new information has shown that not only does the Ombudsman use NHS lies unchecked (copies retained), it also readily bends to NHS demands for Outcome changes, even when it’s letting them off with a potential manslaughter. They know this. Now I know.

When the NHS is ‘not happy’ with ‘Outcomes’ they just get it changed to something ‘more acceptable’ to agree with. There’s a sort of buddy-bartering which goes on, to ensure nobody gets hurt except the victim. Plus future patients of course, but at least jobs are all kept.

When a victim is ‘not happy’ with an Outcome all they get is ‘very sorry you don’t agree with us’ i.e. go screw yourself in words to that same effect, even when PHSO is fully aware of mental oppression they’ve dealt out up to that point. This may be the best way to shut them up forever and PHSO knows it; it’s a game to them.

In my case now x10 years of that same treatment. Secretive; inept; ignorantly corrup; abusivet. This is the PHSO today – and maybe worse than ever. I have now seen that they actually ‘tag’ victims (complainants) records to indicate “No new evidence to be taken. Put down the phone on this caller”.

I wonder how many other bereaved and secondary PHSO victims have seen the same behaviour? Life wreckers – but keep the ship heading for the ice. imo.

Corrupt by design is an appropriate heading:
After nearly 2 years of so called investigation, and the final letter disregarding our very detailed and factual challenge. I would warn to avoid the PHSO. Their main purpose appears to be to delay, so you are outside the 3 years limit and can’t use the courts. They never investigated anything, all they did in 18 months was consulted a couple medical surgeon advisors who missed vital facts, and came to a conclusion that defies all logic. In our case, my wife had 50 inches of scarring and crippling life changing injuries inflicted on her without any consent in 2 operation, and incorrect consent in the 1 operation(all failed) = £500 compensation and a wrap over the knuckles for the Hospital St Thomas, London who used my wife as a guinea pig. I stopped a fourth imminent operation as my wife was down 6 stone, and very weak. All this from a very minor patella fracture, and infection contracted during surgery….The hospital has consistently lied, and on tape, whose own investigation took 18 months and came up with zilch, with common purpose written all over it. “Not the outcome we all would have wished” From St Thomas, is virtually the same sentence the Ombudsman final letter ends with. “Not the outcome you were hoping for”…I wished I had never bothered.. Now it’s the press, Internet, etc…

Brenda. On 21st. November 2018 “Donna” posted on this thread her petition to Parliament . Which I signed and reminded people on this thread twice. The petition was closed after 6 months because of lack of signatures !

Brenda Are there as many people affected by flaws in the NHS as those who are currently demonstrating about climate change.

I suspect there are more people affected by problems in the NHS and the PHSO than anybody could ever realize.

Yet a 16 year old Swedish girl now has the ear of the politicians and and thousands block the streets all over the world.

It seems that lying down and pretending to die in a museum gets get far more publicity than the real thing.

Sadly ranting and commenting on the internet has no impact whatsoever. I notice that the “Patients Association” are being positive have started a training scheme for NHS trust on how to handle complaints competently .

Media Publicity of the multiplicity and level of problems is sadly lacking. How do we get the media interested. !

Media coverage is controlled by the state. They decide where the spotlight lands. For years they have ignored climate change demonstrations but we have reached a tipping point and it is in their interest to use the public concern put change on the agenda. It is unlikely that we will ever be in a place where it is in the state interest to put in better measures to hold them to account. Hence no media coverage for us.

I seriously doubt whether Rupert Murdoch or the other
owners of media ( and the BBC) would agree that they are controlled by “the state.”

It is also quite clear that if “the state” had any interest in gagging media comment they would close down this site.

“The state” as we know it in our own the political system is disappearing before our eyes, as people like Anne Widdecombe former Tory minister join up with the Brexit nutters and Parliament descends into chaos.

The times they are a changing and it is people who care that are making it happen, not “the state “

Both NHS and PHSO have dismissed all “reasonable opportunities ” to represent the interests of the public by not honestly and impartially investigating and addressing complaints in my son’s avoidable death.

That includes FOUR reasonable opportunities BEFORE HE DIED. The Ombudsman and successive futile attempts to investigate are recorded history. Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust corrupted the process in lying and the PHSO dismissed with yet more arrogance, ignorance and collaborative favouritism. It is tragic that the errors have been repeated for ten years with more futile deaths as a result. Pointless and life-destroying.